About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of course this is chuck hagel, the former republican senator from nebraska. look at some of his answers. >
that defense secretary nominee chuck hagel have made financial ties to a group called friends of hamas. pretty explosive stuff. the story published on february 7th, got picked up by some right-wing blogs, including the national review online. senator rand paul weighed in on it. >> let me bring up one piece of information that ben shapiro at breitbart put out today, which is one of the foreign funders behind senator hagel that he has not yet disclosed formally is something called friends of hamas. if that is in fact true, senator, would that lead you to vote against mr. hagel? >> you know, i saw that information today also, and that is more and more concerning with each day there are new things coming out. >> well, we got a problem, houston. friends of hamas does not exist. the group was made up by new york daily news reporter dan freedman as a joke. freedman said he was asking a republican aide on capitol hill about rumors that hagel had spoken to controversial groups. >> so i was trying to follow up on that. and i was -- i spoke to a republican aide on the phone, and i asked about that. and i
's talk about chuck hagel's confirmation. i'm sure you saw it. it was great television. a lot of fireworks between hagel and john mccain. take a look. >> we are correct or incorrect. yes or no? >> my reference to the refer -- >> the question is were you right or wrong. that's a pretty straight forward question. i would like to answer and then you are free to elaborate. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> joe, first of all, let me ask you this. the white house didn't jump to his defense after that stuff. why not? >> who didn't? >> the white house. the white house didn't jump to his defense. >> the white house has a sense that he has a good chance to be confirmed and everybody know that is the hearings will be contentious. no doubt there will be a lot of consengz and a lot of bad blood between this senator and colleagues and many who question his stance with regard to iran and how strong he would be and also with regard to israel. expect contention. that doesn't mean he won't be confirmed. i don't think the white house will jump to his defense. >> again, white house didn't j
about chuck hagel because we expect a vote tomorrow now even very close to hagel and asking for him to be confirmed. they suggested last week the white house that he did have the votes with richard shelby, a republican saying that he has endorsed him, that he at least stops the filibuster and gets a final confirmation sometime this week. >> we now have about 66 votes. not all of them declared to basically call on cloture, and they have well over the number of needed of majority votes, including richard shelby, potentially lisa murkowski, but she hasn't declared where she is on hagel per se. this looks like it will go forward. we're all expecting this vote to take place tomorrow afternoon. probably get e yet again during your show, andrea. if ted cruise and jim inhoff want to drag this out to the furthest possible end, they could call 30 more hours of debate and the vote could take place on wednesday. >> chris, now we have the sequester. only four days away. no sign of progress. the governor's role there, very strong republican governors, you some real rising political republican sta
chuck hagel's nomination this week over benghazi. next week there is more hearings. leon panetta, the outgoing secretary is going to testify there. secretary clinton already testified there. is there anything that can be done at this point by secretary panetta or anybody else to convince republicans that it wasn't a secret ghost ship to turkey or some other conspiracy? is there any way to fact chilly disprove what they want to believe about it? >> this is going to go down as one of the right-wing myths about america that are never going to die there are a certain core that are going to keep banging the drum. at some point perhaps someone will nudge the people who are pursuing this say we actually have real problems in north africa there is an intervention happening in mali. there are substantive issues on the table. stop talking about this. but it is so hermetically sealed in that world. >> yeah. >> that i don't see them getting out of it, other than someone making some sort of crass political judgment that this is no longer bringing the benefits that they thought it would. >> on
. there are not a lot of people that want to do anything. that is what chuck hagel has in common, you could be the most conservative senator, john mccain's pick for the cabinet. as soon as you get a little bit of obama on you they can't work with you. and it is their problem, a lot of us have to deal with it but it is fundamentally a failure of the republican party and it is why they're going to continue to lose elections in and perhaps past the obama era. >> paul ryan wanted a piece of this anti-immigration obama stuff, so let's listen to him. >> leaking it out does set things in the wrong direction. the things we have to ask ourselves, particularly with the white house is president obama looking for a bipartisan law? and without addressing future flow, by giving advantage who cut in front of line for immigrants who came here legally, not dealing with border security adequately, that tells us he is looking for a bipartisan advantage, and not a solution. >> steve, it tells us it is not actually a complete legislative proposal. >> it is a starting point, and again, one of the republican's favorite lines
reacted more quickly. i think john kerry will push the administration and that direction. chuck hagel to a certain extent by not putting boots in the ground and areas where we know little and have no idea what the out come will be. the example is libya and what happened in benghazi. a huge intem jens failure. not the state department, but the cia. >> with syria, we move our red lines and losing credibility. you said that militarism has negatively affected the period abroad. i wonder if you weigh in on whether you think his drone program or the expansion of the drone program has damaged our reputation abroad even further. >> for damaged our reputation bad low. the idea that a president is sitting in the white house with a hit list with candidates for targeted killings is an outrage. the real blunder was to nominate john brennan as the director of central intelligence that explain a policy he orchestrated and conceived and is responsible for implementing. any other would note have dealt with the questions that john brennan had to deal with. i think obama should go back to the positions
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)